High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shambhu Dayal Trivdedi v. Ist. A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 14525 of 1992  RD-AH 5244 (23 March 2007)
(Court No. 28)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14525 of 1992
Shambhoo Dayal Trivedi Versus I Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of sufficient service as per office report dated 11.11.2005 no one has appeared on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.3.
This is landlord's writ petition arising out of release proceedings initiated by him against original tenant respondent No.3 Jagdish Narain Bajpai since deceased and survived by legal representatives on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P Urban Building (Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972. The application was registered as rent case No. 21 of 1985 Prescribed authority / VIII Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the release application on 21.10.1986. Against the said judgement and order, original landlord petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed Rent Appeal No. 130 of 1986. Appeal was dismissed on 5.12.1991 by I Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar hence this writ petition.
Release application was filed in the year 1985. Concept of bonafide need and comparative hardship goes on changing rapidly. After 22 years the entire scenario may have changed. Moreover original landlord and tenant both have died. Even if after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on merit the court is satisfied that both the impugned orders are erroneous in law then in normal course matter will have to be remanded to the prescribed authority. Under Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act after one year of dismissal of release application under section 21 of the Act fresh release application may be filed.
Accordingly liberty is granted to the petitioners to file fresh release application. If such an application is filed then the same shall be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record therein without being influenced by any finding recorded in the impugned orders challenged through this writ petition.
Property in dispute is two rooms accommodation situate in Kanpur Nagar which is most expensive city of Uttar Pradesh. Rent is stated to be Rs. 120/- per month. For such an accommodation the said rent is almost negligible .
I have held in Khursheeda vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 64 and H.M. Kitchlu vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the court below writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. In case Rent Control Act had not been applicable then landlord would have been entitled to evict the tenant just after termination of tenancy even if he had no need.
Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from May 2007 onwards tenants shall pay rent to the landlords petitioners @ Rs.1000/- per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the tenants.
As no one has appeared on behalf of tenants hence petitioners shall send certified copy of this judgement through registered post to all the three substituted legal representatives of tenant respondent No.3.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.